Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: the sorting behavior, pagination mechanism, and the fact that it lists videos (a read operation). It doesn't disclose rate limits or error conditions, but given the annotations, the added context is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus an example, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains inputs and options, and the example demonstrates usage. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description explains the return fields (view counts, publish dates, durations, URLs) and covers the essential invocation details: channel identification, sorting, and pagination. It does not mention response size limits or whether includeExtras affects output structure, but for a list tool with this simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds a small hint that channelId starts with 'UC...' and provides an example call, which slightly aids understanding. However, it largely restates what the schema already says, so the value added is marginal.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List videos'), a specific resource ('YouTube channel'), and the exact output fields (view counts, publish dates, durations, URLs). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like scrapecreators_facebook_ads or scrapecreators_instagram_posts by naming the platform and resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage instructions: how to identify the channel (channelId or handle), sorting options ('latest' or 'popular'), and pagination via continuationToken. It includes a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternative tools, though the sibling names make the distinction obvious.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.